What is the genesis of the case?

How did the litigation against David Nosal originate?

Back to Top

  • On November 5, 2004, David Nosal officially separated from Korn/Ferry International (KFI) after serving as the company’s top producer for nearly the entirety of his tenure. As part of his separation agreement, Mr. Nosal was contractually obligated to complete, as an independent contractor, approximately 15 searches that he had won while at KFI and which were still open at the time of his departure, and to collect on $3 million in fees due to KFI. He did both.
  • Approximately 15-20 people planned to join Mr. Nosal when he opened his own firm, Nosal Partners, which launched officially in November 2005. Amongst them were a handful of people who left KFI before or after Mr. Nosal’s departure. Two of these individuals started their own search firms through which to continue to work in executive search in anticipation of joining Nosal Partners.
  • About a dozen of the people who planned to join Nosal Partners continued to work at KFI. One of them was an executive assistant named Jacqueline Froelich-L’Heureaux.
  • KFI meticulously orchestrated an FBI investigation to get the government to bring a criminal case against Mr. Nosal before July 31, 2005—the date upon which KFI was contractually obligated to pay him more than a million dollars for his work as an independent contractor on assignments that were still open. To date, KFI has not paid Mr. Nosal the money it owes him.
  • Sensing that KFI would try to find a reason to not pay him what he was owed, Mr. Nosal proactively set up a regular update call with KFI’s General Counsel, Peter Dunn, that took place every two weeks. The purpose of these calls was to make sure both sides were honoring the separation agreement terms and to provide a forum for calling out any potential improprieties. During these bi-weekly calls, Mr. Nosal asked Mr. Dunn, “Is there anything that you or anyone at KFI is concerned about?” These calls took place every two weeks for nearly a year and NEVER ONCE did Mr. Dunn voice any concerns to Mr. Nosal.
  • On August 2, 2005, KFI filed a civil suit against David Nosal, and four of his former coworkers (Becky Christian, Mark Jacobson, Michael Louie, and Jacqueline Froelich-L’Heureaux) for allegedly downloading source lists from KFI’s database, Searcher.  Watch David explain these first allegations in his own words.
  • In tandem with the civil suit, KFI worked with the FBI to conduct early-morning raids on the homes of several of the people who planned to join Nosal Partners, alleging that they had illegally downloaded data. KFI also worked with The Wall Street Journal to print the first of two articles alleging that David Nosal had master-minded “the largest downloading of data in the history of the executive search industry.” These allegations were later proven to be false.
  • The civil suit was dismissed by the San Mateo County Superior Court the following year. (Please click on this link to read details of dismissed Case CIV448606 on the San Mateo County Superior Court public records.)
  • KFI referred the dismissed civil suit to the U.S. government. With strong ties to KFI, the government indicted Mr. Nosal on 20 counts related to alleged misappropriation of data on April 10, 2008.  Watch David describe these further allegations in his own words.
  • On April 13, 2009, the Honorable Judge Marilyn Hall Patel dismissed nine of the original 20 counts, because they we not supported by law.
  • In January 2010, the Honorable Judge Marilyn Hall Patel dismissed five additional counts because they were not supported by law.
  • On April 10, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Marilyn Hall Patel’s orders dismissing five counts in the government’s case.

How did a private business dispute turn into a criminal case?

  • KFI’s primary law firm, O’Melveny & Meyers hired Sharon Bunzel from the US Attorney’s Office.  KFI then asked her to spearhead its efforts to refer the internal case to the government.
  • Bunzel brought KFI’s civil suit to the attention of Miles Ehrlich, a prosecutor in the white-collar division of the US Attorney’s Office and a former colleague.
  • The Recorder, an online legal publication, detailed how Bunzel worked diligently on KFI’s behalf to get the government to “do its dirty work” and “eliminate Nosal as a competitor”
    • The Recorder states,” In the case of Nosal, it was Bunzel who brought Korn/Ferry’s complaint to the authorities in 2005. Bunzel had recently left the U.S. attorney’s office in San Francisco and she reached out to her former colleague, Miles Ehrlich, who was then a white-collar prosecutor. O’Melveny Los Angeles partner Framroze Virjee followed up, sending Ehrlich the company’s drafted but unfiled civil complaint.
    • “I know Sharon has provided you with some preliminary background on the matter and that you have expressed an interest in learning more regarding the facts and circumstances involved,” Virjee wrote in a July 6, 2005, email obtained by The Recorder. Ehrlich, who left later that year to start the criminal defense firm Ramsey & Ehrlich in Berkeley, did not respond to phone or email messages.
  • In August 2005 the FBI executed search warrants on homes and offices identified by KFI’s investigation on the same day the firm filed its civil suit. By that time, O’Melveny had been investigating Nosal for about four months under the direction of KFI’s longtime general counsel, Peter Dunn, who testified at trial about the events.
  • KFI proved to have very close ties to the government. For example, KFI was allowed to serve a $24 million civil lawsuit to one of the co-defendants DURING the FBI’s raid of his home. According to the lead FBI agent’s testimony at trial, out of the hundreds of cases he has worked, this was the first and only instance where a corporation interrupted a secured FBI raid to deliver a civil suit.
  • Watch David explain the collusion between KFI and the US Government in his own words.

Why has KFI taken this action against its former top performer?

  • Nosal, resigned from KFI due to unethical, immoral, and what he believed were illegal activities taking place at KFI.
  • Watch David explain KFI’s motivation in his own words.
  • After his resignation and upon KFI’s insistence, Mr. Nosal agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevented him from speaking publicly about the issues he had escalated to senior management prior to his resignation.  Until 2018, Mr. Nosal took the high road in still honoring his confidentiality agreement by not disclosing his former employer’s business practices.
  • KFI’s extraordinarily aggressive course of action represents an effort to not only undermine a competitor in the marketplace and dissuade more KFI employees from joining Nosal Partners, but also to discredit Mr. Nosal should he publicly expose his former employer’s very serious ethical issues.
  • KFI continues to support unethical behavior – click here to see a recent case that KFI tried to quickly bury.
  • Watch David describe the details of the Francois Truc case in his own words and also explain why it’s very relevant to his own case in his own words.

David Nosal’s departure from KFI

What are the circumstances surrounding David Nosal’s departure from KFI?

Back to Top

  • For nearly a decade, Mr. Nosal was one of KFI’s most senior partners, accepting ever-increasing levels of responsibility. He was not only KFI’s top global billing partner, but also one of a handful of people serving on the company’s Global Operating Committee.  At the time of his resignation, Mr. Nosal ran the company’s CEO Practice and West Coast Board Practice, as well as its offices in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, and Chicago.
  • During the last year of his tenure, Mr. Nosal continued to raise a number of very serious concerns to KFI’s executive leadership team around the company’s business practices, ethics, and go-to-market strategy. The issues he highlighted included the truthfulness and validity of the information the company shared with the business community, as well as significant problems internal to the organization itself regarding business ethics and actions by a number of senior leaders.  These issues centered on gender and racial bias, sexual harassment, misappropriation of confidential data from a competitor, as well as the existence of prohibited material on the computer of one of the most senior leaders in the company, as highlighted by government witness testimony at trial.
  • Nosal repeatedly discussed these governance issues with the then Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Executive Officer, and then General Counsel who refused to take any action. As a result of the senior leadership’s inaction, Mr. Nosal resigned from KFI.
  • Watch David explain his departure in his own words.

What was the nature of Mr. Nosal’s separation agreement with KFI?

  • Under the independent contractor agreement, Mr. Nosal would complete approximately 15 open search assignments and oversee the collection of over $3 million in receivables due to KFI.  Mr. Nosal would receive both a base fee and a significant bonus for doing so on July 31, 2005.
  • At KFI’s insistence, the agreement contained a stipulation that prevented “Mr. Nosal from spaking publicly about the issues he had escalated to senior management prior to his resignation.”
  • KFI understood that Mr. Nosal would be working with a team of KFI employees and using its resources, including Searcher—KFI’s internal candidate database, to complete the searches. The contract was to conclude on July 31, 2005.
  • Two of the KFI consultants (Ms. Christian and Mr. Jacobson) resigned from KFI in early 2005 (after Mr. Nosal left), but with the approval and knowledge of KFI’s leadership, continued to assist Mr. Nosal on the search assignments he completed as an independent contractor.
  • As an independent contractor, Mr. Nosal updated Peter Dunn, KFI’s General Counsel, on a biweekly basis regarding the progress of his open searches and the resources necessary to complete the searches.
  • As part of the biweekly calls with Mr. Dunn, Mr. Nosal asked one very important question on each call: “Am I in compliance with the terms of my separation agreement?”  Every two weeks for 12 months, Mr. Dunn indicated every time that Mr. Nosal was in full compliance with the terms of the separation agreement.
  • The company was contractually obligated to pay Mr. Nosal more than $1 million for the work he completed as an independent contractor. However, KFI reneged on paying Mr. Nosal the money that he was owed.
  • KFI filed a civil suit against Mr. Nosal on August 2, 2005—the day after the money KFI owed him for completing remaining open searches was due, claiming that four of the individuals planning to join his new search firm, two of which were helping him on his open searches, downloaded information from Searcher to help him at his new executive search firm. Again, this allegation was later proven to be FALSE.

Did Mr. Nosal have the right to accept work during the term of his separation agreement?

  • Upon his resignation on October 31, 2004, KFI mandated that David sign a separation agreement that included a non-compete clause, as well as a companion independent contractor agreement.
  • Non-compete agreements are illegal and void in the state of California. According to the California Business & Professions Code 16600, “Every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”
  • The Honorable Marilyn Judge Patel and Ninth District Court upheld this view when dismissing the majority of the charges against Mr. Nosal on April 13, 2009 and January 6, 2010.


Litigation and NGS Global

Does the litigation involve NGS Global (or its predecessor firm in the Americas, Nosal Partners)?

Back to Top

  • NO.  Neither NGS Global nor its predecessor firm in the Americas, Nosal Partners, have ever been a party to the criminal case, or to any civil action with KFI. KFI’s August 2005, lawsuit and the government’s investigation predate Nosal Partners launch in November 2005.
  • NGS Global and Nosal Partners have never employed anyone involved in the lawsuit other than Mr. Nosal. The suit does, however, involve the actions of a few of the individuals who planned to join Mr. Nosal at Nosal Partners, but who were never employed by the company. (The government and KFI would like the business community to believe that it was only Mr. Nosal and these few individuals who were going to start Nosal Partners. In fact, numerous partners from KFI planned to join Nosal Partners and were active participants in the planning stages of building the company.)
  • On August 2, 2005, as part of their raids the FBI seized Nosal Partners’ database, servers, desktop computers and laptop computers-most of which of which were never returned-even though no information from KFI’s database was ever found on Nosal Partners’ database or computer equipment.
  • The media coverage of the criminal case has left some with the impression that the litigation in some way involves NGS Global’s predecessor firm, Nosal Partners. The litigation, however, concerns work requested by clients after Mr. Nosal left KFI and executed by individuals who established their own firms— Christian & Associates and Jacobson Search Partners—and were planning to join Nosal Partners after it launched.

Has the active litigation had an impact on NGS Global or its predecessor firm, Nosal Partners?

  • NGS Global is aware of the practice of certain search firms to attempt to use KFI’s litigation against Mr. Nosal to their advantage when pitching to prospective clients for work, but has greatly appreciated the outpouring of support from clients.
  • NGS Global continues to expand with new business, as well as new partners. However, there is no doubt that the heavy-handed tactics of both KFI and the government have interfered with Mr. Nosal’s efforts to build an even more successful global business.
  • Since its November 2005 launch, NGS Global has completed more than approximately 3600 searches on behalf of public and private companies.

What is the nature of the information alleged to have been taken?

When did the four individuals allegedly take information from the Searcher database?

Back to Top

  • The KFI employees working with Mr. Nosal on the remaining active search assignments he was responsible for completing under the terms of his separation agreement received numerous pieces of information, including source lists, from Searcher with KFI’s knowledge and permission for the year after Mr. Nosal left KFI as an employee.
  • Ms. Christian left KFI in January 2005, but continued to receive Searcher data from KFI (with their knowledge and consent) to help Mr. Nosal with the open search assignments he was executing as an independent contractor on behalf of KFI.
  • On May 3, 2005, Marlene Briski, KFI’s Vice President of Information Services, discovered that four individuals, Ms. Christian, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Louie, and Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux downloaded data from Searcher before they left KFI. During the trial, all of the government witnesses confirmed under oath that Mr. Nosal did not know they were accessing the KFI database, nor did he know they took any source lists.
  • Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux was the only person still employed by KFI at the time Ms. Briski discovered the downloads. To be clear, as she was a current KFI employee, Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux was legally entitled to access this information.
  • KFI began to monitor Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux’s computer activity, but did not revoke her password or restrict her usage of the KFI computer system, which included Searcher.
  • During the trial, Ms. Briski testified before the jury that KFI had enough information to fire Jacqueline Froelich-L’Heureaux by April 2005, but they kept her employed. Because she was still employed by KFI and had a valid Searcher log in, Jacqueline Froelich-L’Heureaux was permitted to access any and all information in Searcher. Why did KFI not fire Jacqueline Froelich-L’Heureaux?

What exactly was Ms. Christian accused of taking from the Searcher database?

  • Ms. Christian was accused of accessing Searcher on two occasions after she resigned from the company in January 2005 to take three source lists that she was going to use on one of the searches Mr. Nosal passed to her when she opened Christian & Associates.
  • Specifically, Ms. Christian accessed Searcher with the permission of Mr. Nosal’s former assistant, Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux, who was still employed at KFI at the time. Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux gave Ms. Christian her computer login and password. Christian stated in her sworn testimony that Mr. Nosal was neither consulted/asked if she should call Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux for her password, nor did he know until years after the fact through the discovery process that she had done so. 

Did KFI take any measures to alert Mr. Nosal that it had concerns around the activities of the consultants assisting him on his projects under the independent contractor agreement?

  • While trying to build a case to renege on its obligation to pay Mr. Nosal the sum due July 31, 2005 under his separation agreement, KFI did not restrict computer access from Ms. Froelich-L’Heureaux even though they detected unusual activity with her login and documented it over a period of a few months.
  • Although asked specifically by Mr. Nosal if he was satisfying the terms and conditions of his independent contractor agreement with KFI on each of his bi-weekly update calls, KFI’s General Counsel, Mr. Peter Dunn, assured Mr. Nosal during each conversation that KFI had no concerns about his standing relative to the agreement. Meanwhile, Mr. Dunn was working behind the scenes with the government to orchestrate a civil lawsuit in concert with an FBI raid.
  • Watch Mr. Nosal explain what actually happened during his one-year separation agreement in his own words.

What is a source list?

Back to Top

  • A source list contains names, titles and companies for executives an executive search consultant might consider approaching for a specific executive search.

Did the source lists in question contain confidential information?

  • No.  The lists consisted simply of names, titles and company names for a group of executives.  Some of the lists included a telephone number for a subset of executives.  The lists did not include email addresses.  The lists did not include compensation information, consultant notes or any other form of value-added information that would have resulted from actual interaction with the executives in question. The records were similar to pages in a phone book, only without phone numbers for most of the executives.  Click here to see some of the actual source lists presented at trial.
  • Much of the information contained in the lists was proven to be outdated at the time it was taken.


What is in the Searcher database?

How does KFI compile the information contained in the Searcher database

Back to Top

  • As highlighted in the testimony of government witnesses during the trial, the majority of the information in the Searcher database comes from publicly available sources, such as Hoovers, ZoomInfo, OneSource, LinkedIn, trade publications, company websites, etc.
  • KFI employees are encouraged to enter information into Searcher, including information they bring with them from prior search firms. During Mr. Nosal’s trial, government witnesses admitted that they brought information collected while working at competing search firms prior to KFI and input that data into Searcher.
  • A former IT Coordinator for KFI, Michael Louie, testified that KFI’s President of North America, Bob Damon, and Vice Chairman, Joe Griesedieck, had instructed him to upload data from their previous employer, Spencer Stuart, into the searcher database upon joining the company.
  • Candidates frequently enter their information directly into the Searcher database.
  • Resume distribution services for job-seeking executives push resumes to executive search firms for entry into their databases through daily eblasts.

What measures did KFI take to prevent the dissemination of data from the Searcher database?

  • Although KFI had an acceptable use policy, the company did not take measures to prevent dissemination of data from Searcher, as evidenced by witness testimony at trial. Ms. Christian testified that KFI employees regularly emailed source lists around, took them home, gave them to clients, and so on.  Employees were free to take all of their source lists with them after they left KFI; no measures were in place to prevent such public dissemination, such as passwords on documents, exit interviews, or demands for the materials.
  • Caroline Nahas, (one of KFI’s most senior partners for many years) in her own testimony, admitted to sending these same source lists to clients on multiple occasions (without approval from other partners) and not knowing if clients shared them broadly with others.

Is the information in the Searcher database proprietary or constitute a trade secret

  • According to Wikipedia, “A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, commercial method, or compilation of information not generally known or reasonably ascertainable by others by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers.”
  • During the trial, Marlene Briski, Vice President of Information Services at KFI, Ms. Christian, and Mr. Jacobson all testified that the data in Searcher came from public sources such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Hoovers, Zoom Info, LinkedIn, Google, corporate websites, etc. In addition, it is a common practice for search partners moving from one search firm to another to bring source lists that were generated from and for their previous firm that are then uploaded into the new firm’s database.
  • In KFI witnesses’ testimony at Mr. Nosal’s trial, they indicated that KFI employees regularly disclose information from Searcher to outsiders. Source lists are frequently printed out and taken away from KFI, emailed to people outside of the company, and given to clients during pitches.
  • The testimony also indicated that, although KFI could track activity, the company did not prevent people from printing, emailing, or otherwise distributing information from Searcher.
  • Mr. Nosal’s attorney’s position, as well as a number of well-respected 9th District judges, is that considering that the names, titles, and contact information for the executives and companies in Searcher most often came from public sources and frequently other search firms, and that KFI regularly shared information from Searcher with outside parties, the information contained in the Searcher database cannot be considered proprietary.
  • Mr. Nosal’s attorneys and many legal experts also believe that because most of the information contained in the database is readily available to the general public – including KFI’s competitors – it is impossible for Searcher to give KFI any significant economic advantage over its competitors.

What other measures has KFI taken to undermine its former top performer?

KFI has fed false information to the media

Back to Top

  • In August of 2005, KFI proactively facilitated and drove the release of information to and through the Wall Street Journal highlighting that a number of former KFI employees downloaded approximately 35,000 records. KFI’s Chief Executive Officer, Paul Reilly, went on public record in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that Mr. Nosal was aware of this downloading.
  • This information was false it has since been proven that:
    • One of the alleged co-conspirators, Michael Louie, testified that he downloaded 8,000+ records from Searcher for a mortgage lending business he was about to launch and that Mr. Nosal had no knowledge that he took any data.
    • A second individual, Mr. Jacobson, who downloaded between 22,000 and 25,000 records, stated in his deposition prior to the government’s involvement that at no time did Mr. Nosal ask him to take anything. Only after continued pressure from KFI that included a $20+ million lawsuit, did Mr. Jacobson alter his original deposition that he made under oath to say that Mr. Nosal said that he did not care what Mr. Jacobson took.
    • Mr. Nosal was never personally accused of taking anything. In fact, the KFI witnesses testified upon cross examination that there was no indication that David personally downloading anything. During the trial, there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Mr. Nosal took even a single name or source list from the KFI database.

KFI pulled all of its advertising from an industry publication that ran a positive news article on Nosal Partners

Trial verdict and case status

What is the current disposition of David’s case?

Back to Top

  • On April 26, 2013, Mr. Nosal was found guilty on six counts relating to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Economic Espionage Act (EEA).
  • The remaining counts which Mr. Nosal and his attorney believed should have been dismissed, involved two other people who were going to join Mr. Nosal’s firm in 2005 (Mr. Nosal did not allow either to join after what was discovered). One of these same individuals who had already left KFI and had her own search firm was given the password to KFI’s database by another individual who was still at KFI. That same person, then accessed KFI’s database twice in July of 2005 and took three source lists with approximately 200 names, titles, companies, and a handful of corporate phone numbers. Because Mr. Nosal passed this search to the one individual who had her own search firm, and received a finder’s fee for doing so, he became a target.  At NO TIME, did Mr. Nosal know that these two individuals exchanged a password, or that one person used that password on two occasions to take the three source lists.
  • It should be noted that the sharing of the password from one to another listed above happened approximately 20 days prior to Mr. Nosal ‘s separation agreement expiring!
  • At sentencing on January 8, 2014, Judge Chen reduced the government’s claim of damages by more than 95% and rejected its recommendation for a sentence including a significant period of incarceration. The judge specifically relied on what he referred to as Mr. Nosal’s exemplary professional career and a long-standing track record of generosity to the community in imposing this decision.
  • Due to the novelty and significance of the issues of law at stake, the district court’s decision sustaining the remaining charges against Mr. Nosal were reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
  • In January, 2018, Mr. Nosal’s attorney Steven Gruel filed a Writ of Coram Nobis, a request for Brady material and petition for an evidentiary hearing, as well as a Motion for Post-Remand Restitution Reduction

Why would the codefendants testify against David?

  • During the early years of the investigation, the three codefendants truthfully told the government that Mr. Nosal did not ask them to take any information and was unaware that they had done so. KFI subsequently filed lawsuits against each of them for over $20 million each, and the settlement terms of which included an obligation to testify on KFI’s behalf during the litigation against Mr. Nosal. Their plea agreements with the government also conditioned a grant of leniency on their obligation to testify against Mr. Nosal.
  • The government in parallel with KFI’s threat of a $20+ million suit to each, also threatened prison terms.
  • Nosal’s legal team was prevented from bringing up either KFI’s threat of a $20+ million suit or the fact that the government threatened prison sentences to all three co-defendants.  The jury was never allowed to hear this.

Why has the government invested so many resources in what should be a civil matter?

  • For the government this case has represented an opportunity to drastically expand the reach of criminal sanctions in a relatively new and untested application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

What is the nature of the legal issues at stake?

  • While conducting approximately 15 searches over a 12-month period, one of the individuals who planned to join Nosal Partners once the company opened its doors decided independently to access KFI’s Searcher database using a current employee’s password on two occasions to take a total of three source lists, rather than conducting her own research as she had done for the other assignments she had worked on over the course of a year.  The lists in question consisted of publicly available information—specifically, names, titles and in some cases phone numbers.  Mr. Nosal was not aware that this person had taken the information from KFI at any point in time and only learned about it years after leaving KFI.
  • The two primary issues that were the subject of Mr. Nosal’s appeal were (1) whether, as a matter of law, Mr. Nosal could be convicted of a violation of the CFAA because no person gained “unauthorized access” to Searcher on any of the relevant dates; and (2) whether the conviction under the Economic Espionage Act improperly relied on characterizing source lists as trade secrets.

Why did David Nosal’s legal team not call any witnesses or put on a defense at trial?

  • With over 90% of all allegations made by KFI and the government already proven false, Nosal’s lead defense attorney felt that the legal standard for conviction on the remaining charges in question was not met, and that the legal issues involved in this case were so complex that it would be best to address them in an appellate court rather than trying to explain them to a jury.  Mr. Nosal’s lead attorney, Dennis Riordan, was so convinced that these last remaining charges would/should be thrown out by the Ninth District, that Mr. Nosal’s legal team didn’t call upon any of the 72 witnesses they had lined up to testify at trial.
  • For the record, Mr. Nosal vehemently disagreed with the lead attorney’s strategy to not present a defense.



What is the bottom line?

Back to Top

  • The bottom line is that Mr. Nosal did not participate in, and had no knowledge of any activity that resulted in any taking of information from KFI. Mr. Nosal will continue, for the next 20+ years, to be a part of building the best executive search team and firm the industry and will not back down from either KFI or the government.
  • Mr. Nosal appreciates the continued support he has received both personally and professionally.
  • Mr. Nosal and his attorneys, as well as many who have followed this case, strongly believe that KFI and the U.S. government have colluded on this case. The evidence to support this belief is real.  The collusion is ongoing.
  • Please view all of the videos in the “In His Own Words” section to gain more specifics on the collusion between KFI and the US Government and how KFI launched a personal vendetta against Mr. Nosal.